Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29912478›Full record

ArticleAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2018

Associations Between State-Level Policies Regarding Alcohol Use Among Pregnant Women, Adverse Birth Outcomes, and Prenatal Care Utilization: Results from 1972 to 2013 Vital Statistics.

Meenakshi S Subbaraman, Sue Thomas, Ryan Treffers, Kevin Delucchi, William C Kerr, Priscilla Martinez, Sarah C M Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Meenakshi S SubbaramanAlcohol Research Group , Emeryville, California.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1336-7552
Sue ThomasPacific Institute of Research and Evaluation , Santa Cruz, California.
Ryan TreffersPacific Institute of Research and Evaluation , Santa Cruz, California.
Kevin DelucchiDepartment of Psychiatry , University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
William C KerrAlcohol Research Group , Emeryville, California.
Priscilla MartinezAlcohol Research Group , Emeryville, California.
Sarah C M RobertsAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.

Funding

Alcohol and pregnancy: do state-level punitive and supportive policies matter?R01AA023267 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROBERTS, SARAH C.M. · 2015 to 2025
$3.5M
Inflammation and alcohol-related racial/ethnic health disparitiesK01AA024832 · NIAAA · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI MARTINEZ, PRISCILLA · 2017 to 2021
$789k
NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA024832NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA023267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicies regarding alcohol use during pregnancy continue to be enacted and debated in the United States. However, no study to date has examined whether these policies are related to birth outcomes-the outcomes they ultimately aim to improve. Here, we assessed whether state-level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy are related to birth outcomes, which has not been done comprehensively before.

methodsThe study involved secondary analyses of birth certificate data from 148,048,208 U.S. singleton births between 1972 and 2013. Exposures were indicators of whether the following 8 policies were in effect during gestation: Mandatory Warning Signs (MWS), Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women, Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women/Women with Children, Reporting Requirements for Data and Treatment Purposes, Prohibitions Against Criminal Prosecution, Civil Commitment, Reporting Requirements for Child Protective Services Purposes, and Child Abuse/Child Neglect. Outcomes were low birthweight (<2,500 g), premature birth (<37 weeks), any prenatal care utilization (PCU), late PCU, inadequate PCU, and normal (≥7) APGAR score. Multivariable fixed-effect logistic regressions controlling for both maternal- and state-level covariates were used for statistical analyses.

resultsOf the 8 policies, 6 were significantly related to worse outcomes and 2 were not significantly related to any outcomes. The policy requiring MWS was related to the most outcomes: specifically, living in a state with MWS was related to 7% higher odds of low birthweight (p < 0.001); 4% higher odds of premature birth (p < 0.004); 18% lower odds of any PCU (p < 0.001); 12% higher odds of late PCU (p < 0.002); and 10% lower odds of a normal APGAR score (p < 0.001) compared to living in a state without MWS.

conclusionsMost policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy do not have their intended effects and are related to worse birth outcomes and less PCU.

Indexed as

AlcoholBirth OutcomesPolicyPregnancyVital Statistics

Identifiers

PMID29912478
PMCPMC6298847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.